Why no Male Studies?

A gathering of academicians drawn from a range of disciplines will meet on April 7, 2010, at Wagner College, Staten Island, New York, to examine the declining state of the male, stemming from cataclysmic changes in today's culture, environment and global economy.

At first I wondered if it was a joke. Evidently it is not.

The colloquium will be led by Lionel Tiger, an anthropology professor at Rutgers University.

It appears that a group of scholars want to open a serious discussion of the challenges facing men in today's society -- inability to go to college being one -- as well as the phenomenon of misandry, the hatred of males, a term I confess I had not heard before today.

Women's Studies departments seem to have arisen in the 1970s as part of a wave of feminism and feminist theory, with gender equity the underlying goal. Men's Studies? Well, the assumption has been that men are the group in power. Most of what is studied in universities is, in essence, men's studies.

The group promoting Male Studies suggests that there is need for a study of "the male human being," and of such sub-topics as the deterioration of boys' educational attainment, the prevalence of certain psychological disorders in boys and men and the "remarkable" rate of suicide among males, according to the web site.

You've got be kidding me. Really? REALLY? The declining state of the MALE? Cataclycismic changes??? Yikes. Umm women are still working on trying to get social, legal, emotional and professional equality.

Here's just a taste: According to Business Week only 5% of CEO positions worldwide... are occupied by women. In government the
situation is a little better, on average about 19% of parliamentary seats are held by
women worldwide. Still, there are countries that continue to deny their female population the right to vote.

The reason you people are so surprised is that the media only focuses on women as victims of anything. We think violence against women is such a big problem but it is men who comprise the vast majority of victims of violence.

@Anonymous
The vast majority of men and women never even come close to a top CEO position. So that's hardly representative of the whole population breakdown between the genders.
Most unpleasant, dirty and dangerous jobs are occupied by men too and there are far more of them than there are CEOs.

As for politics. Well, far fewer women aspire to become politicians than men. So it's perfectly appropriate to have that reflected in the results. That has nothing to do with discrimination.

So start to open your eyes and stop listening to feminist indoctrination that women are the only sufferers. Men suffer too and on average a lot more than women. Just because they don't speak out in unison as a gender doesn't make it less real.

Within professions, women are equal or better salary-wise. Spare us the .63 for every $1.00 a man earns. That's been fiction for 20 years now. Women have affirmative action in government and corporate hiring, Title IX, preferences for Pell grants, scholarships, they take 65% of the degrees and they vacuum up the easiest positions in the military, Jessica Lynch notwithstanding. Women want equality, but what's in place is anything but equal. What, they want more? Enough already. Where's ERA? I think the men want it now.

The simple reality in higher education today is that women are gaining admission and taking degrees at higher rates than men. Similar rates, except reversed, a generation ago were described as discriminatory. In universities, in all but a few academic departments, women are taking jobs at higher rates than men.

If what was discriminatory a generation ago is still the case today, only in reverse, then it is easy to make the case that discrimination still exists, just in a new form.

For those who don't want to describe the current decline in men entering and graduating universities as discrimination, this is the problem with measuring discrimination simply on numbers, and why critics of affirmative action have screamed for years that these kinds of raw numerical measures may not tell the full story. And if that's the case, too, then maybe it was a generation ago as well.

Patriarchy is not a good thing for men, either, if you think about it. Anyone who questions the ways in which status quo limits and warps men and boys (e.g., they're often expected to live up to hypermasculine stereotypes and not allowed a full range of human feelings) is on to something.

Rarely have I seen a writer so proudly display ignorance and insensitivity to a subject. Mr. de Vise is a true proud dullard.

It is obvious that males are in rapid decline in this society and misandry, whether Mr. de Vise has heard of the word before or not, exists. While women are portrayed in the media as competent and long suffering, men are portrayed as versions of Homer Simpson in comedies.

Not that this stuff is earth shattering or befitting the creation of Mens Studies departments to bookend the useless degrees that come from Womens Studies departments, but it exists. The college degree stats prove it in fact as well as fiction.

Meanwhile, I recommend Daniel de Vise to the nearest sensitivity training seminar, if one can be found that actually recognizes the crisis for young men in this society.

These "men's rights advocates" are the same misogynists and right wing conservatives who believe women have too many rights and should return to their 'rightful' place back in the home. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to argue facts! These folks willfully disregard gender gaps in politics, business, higher education administration, faculty promotion, hiring, and tenure, a gender wage gap, and rampant violence against women here and around the world. Please do not give this conference and movement credibility, because they deserve none.

Also, another trend with MRA orgs is they never post information about their funding or the creators of their websites. They hide behind the anonymity of the internet to spew hateful, biased diatribes against feminism. -Danielle Geong

*sigh* I have to wonder how many angry chip-on-their-shoulder-a-mile-wide self-proclaimed "feminists" will be weighing in with their self-righteous blather about how it sucks to be a woman(or,"womyn"-no men-get it?)We will read the usual stuff about X percentage of this, and X percentage of that, and the same unbstantiated stuff we've heard since the 70s (59 cents to the dollar, blah blah blah.) yes, a few cave men will write in, like "beenthere3" which will lead to "HAH!SEE?" groannnn.

Anyone that is really interested in this topic should study the effects of the Adam and Eve mythology on the sciences (including medicine) through the ages. Medical sciences were geared to the white male with females an afterthought while other skin colours treated as "animals." The simple fact is that we got where we are today in the West vis a vi women and minorities due to Christianity's misogynistic and paternalistic belief system coupled with it's anti-science dogma.

First, I doubt that women or gender studies courses (I'm leaving out my opinion of their worth) are limited to the problems of being a female. Some courses extol the accomplishments of women, which are many.

With that in mind, why is the current thread of discussion of male studies courses (I'm leaving out my opinion of their worth) limited to the problems of being a male? Should the courses not also extol the accomplishments of men, which are many? (If you disagree, while you are out today, look around and listen, and then explain the derivation of the buildings, the roads, the bridges, the art, the classical and other music, the Constitution, and so much more that meets you as you get from here to there and live your everyday life.)

Perhaps in another post, I will (a) explain the history of why it is so that, at any given time and for the most part, post-19th century men and women in free societies have done what they preferred, (b) make clear that while men, for the most part, have populated the CEO-type positions outside the home, most men, overwhelmingly, have been anything but in charge, in or out of the home, and (c) open some eyes to the real statistics of domestic violence, which many, no doubt, will find surprising.

Ah, so much to learn, but so little time.

In the meantime, try putting your agendas aside and going about your life making sure that it includes the love for others that you probably have mentioned from time to time. Dwelling (meaning giving more thought than warranted) on our shortcomings is a sure path to mean-spiritedness, not to mention unhappiness.

Donutango (one "t" short of two of my favorite words) exclaims "Folks are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to argue facts!"

S/he, of course, is incorrect. Arguing facts is what debate and discussion are all about.

Perhaps s/he has in mind that people are entitled to their opinions, but not to their facts, this thought being grounded in the belief that facts are just that, facts, not susceptible to change in order to suit one's argument.

Reasonable discourse is based on an acceptance of what is factual, and then dealing with the sequelae of those facts.

Men's Studies? Well, basically almost everything that you read IS about men. History is about men, politics is about men, technology is about men. Society is driven by men. We live in a world (on a global scale) devised and run by men.

"These "men's rights advocates" are the same misogynists and right wing conservatives who believe women have too many rights and should return to their 'rightful' place back in the home. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to argue facts! These folks willfully disregard gender gaps in politics, business, higher education administration, faculty promotion, hiring, and tenure, a gender wage gap, and rampant violence against women here and around the world. Please do not give this conference and movement credibility, because they deserve none.

Also, another trend with MRA orgs is they never post information about their funding or the creators of their websites. They hide behind the anonymity of the internet to spew hateful, biased diatribes against feminism. -Danielle Geong"

Oh really? so what about this "selective womans equality"? When will they be required to register for the draft? When will hundreds of thousands of them be killed or maimed defending this great country? Women just have not blazed thier own trail, instead they have pushed males out of the traditional male jobs. In other words, girls want to be like boys...anyway, men have created just about everything around us in this country...

Its not necessarily about men being 'in control' of society, which admitted has been the norm in most human cultures. Most serious discussions about men's studies focus on issues such as society's standards for masculinity in men and boys, and the disastrous mental and physical affects this can have on men throughout the world. Please don't think of men's studies as a mirror image of women's studies, it doesn't reflect the same injustice and unequal opportunity related issues, but is instead deals with very different topics.

The first thing one needs to learn when they adopt a pet is to learn how the critter thinks. Cats think differently from dogs because of years of instinct. One is not superior to the other, they are just different. So, men and women obviously think, react, live differently from women and vice versa. When you have to deal, live, or work with the opposite sex it is an advantage to know how the other thinks and communicates.

I've spent my whole working career in male-dominated fields: federal law enforcement, police departments, fire departments, accounting and now law. The things I've seen in the male species is a great eye-opener. These men were raised by women (or at least the majority of them were) and these women screwed them up. Mothers do more damage to their sons than anything else. In fact mothers can screw up their daughters pretty badly, too.

So, there are differences between the sexes. If you haven't figured that out by now you're a hopeless case. Neither is superior -- we are just different. I for one would hate to live in a world of totally militant feminists. And I wouldn't want to live in a world of male dominance either.

Men finally will have their day in the limelight as victims of something.

But on a more serious note, why not study men? People study rats, monkeys and other vermin. You can study anything under the sun. Academia should be a free and open range.

Nothing against Womens Studies, but haven't they become a little passe? Women have been studied under a microscope for the last 40 years. What more should we hear? Maybe some other studies should come into vogue.

Beyond that, there's been a huge emphasis on women as victims. While there's plenty of room for that discussion, it should be put in an appropriate perspective.

I don't want to raise my daughters believing they are the victims of history, nor believing they should resent society or men or anyone else.

How about Peoples' Studies or Human Studies? That's something positive where people regardless of gender can all feel part of a common species, evolution, and experience.

This is is surely a topic that needs more serious exploration.
So much of what is termed current 'gender inequality' seems to stem from our consumer-money driven culture.

As a male, I am less and less sure of what my role is or should be with respect to women generally. I do note that in my now-retired profession, when I started in 1971, there were virtually no females in any position of responsibility. Today, 90% of those positions are held by women-many of whom do not have the college education that was required in the past for males.

This illustrates the kinds of gender-competition that pervades much of present society.

Another major area for discussion is, of course, the weight of history, tradition and cultural heritage. As long as we fight wars, should only males be allowed to bear the main burden of life-threatening combat? Is That their only exclusive role any more?

The feminization of American society has gone on unchecked for at least 50 years. How many men do you see teaching pre-school or elementary education? Where are the male role models for young males?

The welfare mom gets the money for the children. Male role models in poor families are often in short supply. When it comes to divorce, the women almost universally get custody of the children and the lion's share of the money and/or property.

America is awash in political correctness, which goes hand in hand with the feminization of American society. America is the world's most powerful matriarchy and the most annoying nag on earth.

While I agree that the subject of why some men are having problems these days is worth some research, I don't agree that a Men's Studies department would be necessary. The subject of male personhood is covered rather well in history and literature and movies etc, which are still mostly about the male experience and psyche.

The premise of this article is based on a misunderstanding. Many "women's studies" programs are now "gender studies," and discuss the ways social pressure and unspoken rules negatively affect both women AND men. For instance, when discussing rape culture, gender studies classes and academic papers will often point out that not only does rape culture condone violence against (mostly) women, that culture ALSO condones demeaning stereotypes of (mostly) men, such as the idea that men are uncontrollable animals. Or another example: even first year gender studies courses talk about how hypermasculinity, and the changing shape of males in pop culture, negatively affect the self-esteem of boys.

Not sure what to make of a post that uses terminology so outdated that even the academics in that field understand that it's outdated.

Over 60% of college graduates are women. Early education through high school is set up for girls, leaving the boys behind.

I've motivated my boys by saying imagine 3 college students standing there. Two will be girls and the third, will it be you or your buddy? Same analogy goes for the professional work place of the future.

Who you going to marry college grad ladies? Who is going to bring home the bacon and raise your kids? Is that blue collar guy going to mother your kids while you are out saving the world?

The biggest lie of both women's studies and gender studies courses is that men are historically "privileged" as a class, compared to women. One look at the number of military deaths utterly destroys this notion. How can men be privileged when they constitute 99% of military casualties? And the suggestion that men run out and join the military because they love putting themselves in violent conflict is as bigoted as any misogynistic statement.

There is an outstanding video about the above phenomenon (gross inequality in men's experience with pain, injury and death compared to women's exemption from these). The videos are professionally produced and the message is right on the money. How often in history have women, in the name of equality, volunteered for military conscription?

Leeduke wrote: "How about adding 'White Studies' as well? And maybe we can then address quotas for white players in basketball, football, and baseball."

Here we see an example of racism against non-white men, along with bigotry against men in general. If men are disproportionately experiencing pain, injury and death in the workplace, and on the battlefield compared to women, and experiencing a higher quantity (over 70 percent [1]) of non-reciprocal partner violence (the definition of battering) -- then non-white males would logically be included in that number. By suppressing any meaningful exploration of male pain -- implying that such discussion is racist -- you discriminate against men on the basis of both race and gender.

I recommend two links below for those readers interested in the full piece. The first is recommended because it contains a picture showing the prevailing negative social attitudes which harm and hold back boys, men, and fathers. The second is recommended because the home page contains a diverse array of articles on boys, men, and fathers. Finally, if readers are interested, the third link is to my faculty web page where some of my recent research and scholarly publications are listed.

dkp01 - "The premise of this article is based on a misunderstanding. Many "women's studies" programs are now "gender studies," and discuss the ways social pressure and unspoken rules negatively affect both women AND men. For instance, when discussing rape culture, gender studies classes and academic papers will often point out that not only does rape culture condone violence against (mostly) women, that culture ALSO condones demeaning stereotypes of (mostly) men..."

Please!!
As if the Feminist Theory/LGBT branches of a Gender Studies Dept somehow add up a place that champions the various problems of the "privileged heteronormative testosterone-challenged *spit*!!! ....male...

Even your words betray your indoctrination and bias. "The Rape Culture"?? We don't have a Rape Culture anymore than we have a Murder Culture or Lack of Cleanliness Culture or an Arugula Culture.

And any normal male who has to go to such indoctrination sessions knows EXACTLY where in the pecking order of morality and correctness - gay or feminist "group mentor" will assign them. The best thing to do is just nod your head when you hear some gay puff up his chest and lecture about unrestrained straight men from a culture of "rape is OK" that condone or participate in the savage rape of at least 1 in four women in college and any women in any home when "The Superbowl is broadcasted".
Love your concern about "hypermasculinity" and the "pop culture" that encourages it. Especially since we know feminists and gay activists are not dumb enough to be going around condemning the evil of hyperfeminine women to their female college students. (That was a big mistake of some rather err...masculine gay feminists in the past".

Men, poor things...
1. Live shorter lives.
2. Have far higher rates of death from suicide and in war.
3. Are more likely to be victims of violence, inc. in the home.
4. Are now dramatically underepresented in the universities and in professional graduation classes.
5. Are slotted in jobs that have harsher conditions for men taking them - yet are subject to class action lawsuits - female truck dispatchers sitting in an office suing for equal pay with truckers.
6. And males are of course discriminated against heavily in Family Court. And in sentencing for equivalent crimes. Where does a young black male thug caught selling drugs go? Where does a poor young black female victim with two little children pressured into joining a gang and caught selling drugs end up?

That there is still a pay gap is a fact. That there is still a glass ceiling is a fact. The vast majority of health study and care is directed towards the health of the caucasian male. Products like passenger vehicles are designed around the average male. If things were actually fair then women would be equally paid ACROSS THE BOARD and would comprise slightly more than 50% of the workforce (as befits our share of the population) IN EVERY SINGLE FIELD from fast food worker to CEO to Congress to the Supreme Court. Quite frankly, any white male who has the talent and genuinely applies himself towards his goal can achieve it.

What I find absolutely most infuriating about whining man syndrome is that when women fail to be adequately represented in any given endeavor, it is supposedly because they don't have an interest or they 'naturally' don't have an aptitude. When men or boys aren't adequately represented, it's OBVIOUSLY because women are stealing something from them or something unfair is afoot.

Hey, maybe boys aren't going to college because they don't want to or because they're too lazy to apply themselves enough to succeed. Maybe it's because they spend too much time whining about how things aren't handed to them on a silver platter anymore instead of actually working.

The whole issue is convoluted, there are privileges unique to both genders. While women might be obtaining more degrees than men, they are not necessarily obtaining a greater percentage of THE BEST degrees. Of course, guys who want to take comfort in winning the battle of the genders should understand capitalism better. Unless they are the ones getting the best degrees it doesn't matter much to their lifestyle whether they are competing with men or women. LMAO.

Gender studies, as an interdisciplinary field, must include both male, female, etc studies, at least if the purpose of this and related fields is to create social change through research and the dissemination of research.
If social change is on the agenda, academics and their students should work hard to move this nation away from a public policy that focuses on broad statistical correlations of gigantic masses of people (i.e. American men, American women). We need more nuanced categories and we must always employ nuanced statistical methods. Further, we need better PR explaining how these social targets were established.
It would also be nice if someone finally put to rest the fallacy of confusing group-level statistical data with individual sample points. People should be gently but consistently mocked for claiming, based purely on group-membership, any trait that is not essential for this group membership. The only situations that I can think of in which it would be sane to feel proud of group membership based purely on that membership and not on personal traits is when one is an active member of a powerful or otherwise desirable formal or informal organization. So to move beyond gender - "I'm Asian therefore I'm good at math" makes no sense but "I'm a proud because I'm an Asian executive that has connections due to some specific aspects of my Asian ancestry that allow me access to an Asian labor market that includes a higher percentage of employees that have the math skills I'm looking for, increasing the likelihood of hiring skilled workers for my organization" does make sense. Our pride, however, needs to be that specific, at least if we wish to avoid thinking and feeling utter nonsense.

iceage94"- the reason you can even MAKE jokes about Whining Man syndrome is because Political Correctness does not allow even a mention of Whining Women Syndrome (aka feminism.)
ChrisFord1-some excellent points, reminds me of when the so-called "Duke lacrosse gang rape" supposedly happened and the leaders of the "gang of 88" who called for them to be castrated were led by Womens Studies professors.

Those 18-20 are also adults. The reason why Women studies was created is because of the need to make sure equality between the genders is enforced because in the 1970s, people were more biased against women than today. Equality between gender also includes males so it shouldn't be offensive that universities will probably create Male Studies. Equality for women is important but it's false to say that men have all the privileges than woman.

I have an idea! Why don't universities teach skills and a body of knowledge? Honestly, speaking as someone with an MA in French, I wish these humanities people would shut their pieholes. People are losing their homes and can't find jobs for crying out loud and we're gonna sit here "debating" all of this crap. Frankly, there should be male studies if we're going to have every other group and gender. But honestly, can we start walking back up the slippery slope we've gone down?

Just a comment on the value of these studies (when they're done seriously and honestly) - the "men's studies" movement is in part a response to statistics on the gender gap in education - which effects economic achievement in part because it effects whether boys end up doing little things like learning to read and write in ways that are useful to potential employers. Now, we could just say "screw you" to the children that aren't performing - but what happens when you have a lot of people that become the working poor and have been told "screw you, just work harder" all their lives? Well, it's not pretty. Of course, people do get lazy and coddled - so the balance is delicate and the risks are always great.

It should also be noted that feminism - though it fell prey to fuzzy thinking and ego-driven feeling - was itself a response to the lies that had held women down for millenia. Not too long ago (when my grandma was first working) a woman could be fired if she didn't quite her job before getting married (a job no man wanted, mind you).

Many of the people complaining about feminism today (especially the feminine not feminist crowd) forget how much other people had to fight, and suffer, for the cause. What is the cause? That the strengths and weaknesses of individuals would be both recognized and valued (especially through equal pay) by others.

This was not easy. All of us, in ways that are open to our thought and hidden from it, categorize others. The feminists sought to ensure that we didn't categorize others randomly, stupidly, or unjustly. They also sought to ensure that we didn't confuse our beliefs about the "average" man or woman with our beliefs about ourselves and others as individual men, women (and etc.)

That original cause has been diluted by the compassion of those people that recognize that even if others judge our strengths and weaknesses fairly, we all need teachers and leaders that will help us to develop our strengths and work around our weaknesses.

I love how all of these feminists critisizing the author for "daring" to post this. You disgusting man haters just hate whenever any attention at all is devoted to men, go back to feministing.com where you and your man hate belong.

women choose to earn less by not working their a$$ off like men do, and yet we have nazis like you complaining about the poor women not being paid the same when they dont work as hard or as long as men do (deal with it geez).

Its funny too the amount of attention womens issues gets from the media, but whenever someone dares to speak out about mens issues then you feminists show your true face(man hate) you feminists are truly disgusting females that deserve to go straight to He!!.:)

"According to Business Week only 5% of CEO positions worldwide... are occupied by women"

About 80% of these CEOs are over age 60; many are over 70. That's TWO generations away from the kids currently in college and entering the workforce. A lot can change in 40-50 years.

It's true that 40 years ago, things were much easier on white men. That has NOTHING to do with today. These older male workers certianly don't benefit young white males. If anything, these older white men fill up "white male" spots, making it more difficult for young white males to enter the workforce without messing up the affirmative action numbers.

When this generation retires, there will be noone to replace them if we continue to unaccurately assume that young white men are advantaged.

We must look at the young generation, only, when assessing whether attempts at acheiving equality have gone too far and have slanted the scales in favor of females and minorites. Statistics from 40 years ago--and workers that entered the workforce 40 years ago--are irrelevant.

When looking at the young generation today, white males do not appear priviledged, and many times appear disadvantaged. It appears that, among this generation, affirmative action has gone far enough.

To comment on the original post, I was alerted to a book published in 2000, written by Dr. Michael Thompson (Psychologist), Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys. Having eavesdropped on a slumber party of middle school boys many years ago, I can attest to their insecurity and sensitivity, which they usually learn to hide by the time they reach high school in our macho American culture.

1. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act--of which, women as a whole are a large beneficiary--college campuses began to change. Campuses became more diverse--more women and more students of color. And in the last few decades, academic areas of study about groups that were historically underrepresented or discriminated against began to develop. As a result, colleges and universities have courses/departments for women's studies, black studies, Asian studies, queer studies, and so on. At some schools, a program like black studies is interdisciplinary, so students take courses in a department like history, which tends to be a department where white men are often studied.

The development of areas of study about women and minorities at the college level trickles down to the K-12 level. My parents never read works by women or minority authors when in high school; it was Shakespeare and other "classics." Now, many high school students read books like Native Son, Invisible Man, Their Eyes were Watching God, Song of Solomon, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, not because it's Black History or Women's History Month, but because these works are modern classics.

2. In response to a comment about White Studies... While "White Studies" is unlikely to be a course offered or department found on a campus, there are courses that study whiteness. The concept of white in the US has changed, and courses about immigration (often in the sociology or ethnic studies departments) explore whiteness. (If you think "whiteness" is static, explore the issues of Latino being an ethnic but not racial label, or the predicament of labeling Arab Americans.) One of my favorite courses in college was a sociology course called Immigration, Assimilation and Ethnicity, which examined patterns of migration to the US, from the country's founding to today.

DCGain: Your post sounds like you are simply talking down to people, rather than saying anything.

"At some schools, a program like black studies is interdisciplinary, so students take courses in a department like history, which tends to be a department where white men are often studied."

Young white men don't like the idea of being dinosaurs that ruled the past, but are currently only sutable as a subject to study in history.

" The concept of white in the US has changed, and courses about immigration (often in the sociology or ethnic studies departments) explore whiteness. (If you think "whiteness" is static, explore the issues of Latino being an ethnic but not racial label, or the predicament of labeling Arab Americans.)"

Nor do we feel that our extinction can be justified by relabeling more politically correct people as the "new white". If affirmative action has gone too far, then it's gone too far.